Knowledge Map

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the weighting logic and a critical prerequisite note about providing repo_path when the server isn't started in a git repo. This goes beyond what annotations alone provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences, each serving a clear purpose: state the core capability, list concrete use cases, and flag an important prerequisite. It is front-loaded with the primary function and contains no fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description does not describe return values, but it covers purpose, usage scenarios, and an important edge case (repo_path). The tool is relatively simple, and the description is sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it, though a hint about output format would make it more complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented. The description reinforces the repo_path requirement and explains the 'path' parameter's role (file/directory to analyze), but adds no new syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Show') and clearly identifies the resource ('who knows a file or directory best'), with explicit weighting criteria (recency, volume, commit frequency). This distinguishes it from sibling analytics tools like hotspots or churn, which focus on different metrics.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'find the right reviewer for a PR, identify knowledge silos, or plan for team transitions.' It does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the use cases are concrete and well-defined.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.